Magistrate authorizes county abatement if owner of 2313 Michigan Avenue fails to comply after prior order

Bay County code enforcement told the special magistrate that a prior order (entered Feb. 13, 2025) found 2313 Michigan Avenue in violation for an unfit, unsafe structure, junk and other violations and that the respondent had 45 days to comply. At Thursday’s hearing staff reported the respondent had not complied, and they recommended abatement, fines and liens. The magistrate modified enforcement timing to give the respondent five days to apply for permits or otherwise take steps; if the respondent fails to act within five days the county will be permitted to abate the violation and may recover costs as a lien.

Why it matters: this case shows a stepped enforcement approach where the magistrate initially gave a 45-day window, and code enforcement later recommended abatement when staff concluded the directive had not been met. The magistrate provided one final short opportunity to file permits or engage the building department before county abatement.

Evidence and history Inspector Scott Thorpe summarized the case history: the site came before the magistrate Feb. 13, 2025, with an order that gave the respondent 45 days to comply. That earlier order authorized abatement and levying costs as a lien if the respondent did not comply. Thorpe said the March 31 reinspection showed violations remained (accessory structure, junk and trash, a vehicle that may or may not be operable). No engineering or permit applications had been received as of the April 7 reinspection.

Respondent’s account Terry Keller, who identified himself as the property respondent, said he had removed many items, had cleaned portions of the accessory building and intended to make needed repairs but lacked funds. He said he is 81 and on Social Security and that some cleanup and repairs had been done but that he disagreed with some staff observations. Keller asked what permits he should apply for; the magistrate directed him to the Bay County Building Department and reiterated the need for a permit application or demolition permit within the short deadline.

Magistrate’s order and next steps Magistrate Tiffany Sutter set a five-day deadline from the hearing date for the respondent to apply for permits or demolition, citing the earlier order’s findings. If the respondent fails to submit permit applications within five days the county is authorized to abate the violation and assess the costs as a lien under local collection procedures. The magistrate said a longer earlier compliance period had been given and noted the county had already been directed to abate if needed in the earlier order.

Ending The respondent was given a final five-day opportunity to begin the required permitting or demolition process; otherwise, county staff may proceed with abatement and cost recovery.